Get Full Test Results

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and delivers: it flags the non-obvious gotcha that 'Pagination applies to test tables (not individual test cases)' with concrete examples, explains aggregation by table, and reveals the sequencing dependency on openl_start_project_tests. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that prevents a wrong call, and it contradicts nothing in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences with the high-value information front-loaded: purpose first, then the pagination gotcha, then the sequencing prerequisite. The example ('TestTable1' with 7 tests) earns its place, though 'Supports filtering failures and pagination (page/offset/size)' is mildly redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying the return structure, the pagination unit, and the required predecessor call. It leaves some edge behavior unaddressed (error behavior when no tests have run, unpaged behavior with huge result sets) and doesn't position itself against the two sibling test-result tools, but nothing critical is missing for making a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value on top by explaining that page/offset/size operate on tables rather than individual test cases and that failures/failuresOnly filter at the aggregated level. The 'IMPORTANT' note reframes the pagination params in a way the individual param descriptions do not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get full test execution results') and describes the return shape ('testCases array grouped by table'), which an agent can act on. It distinguishes from siblings like openl_get_test_results_summary largely through the word 'full' and the table-grouping detail, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to call it: it is the full-results tool with table-level pagination, and it states the hard prerequisite 'Use openl_start_project_tests() first to start test execution.' It does not give when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as openl_get_test_results_summary / openl_get_test_results_by_table, which is a mild gap given the sibling cluster.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.